Plaintiff, Suk Semoon, was an artist who was a professional artist who placed in the National Competition hosted by the National Gallery of the Republic of Korea in 1965. In 1970, plaintiff graduated with fine arts degree from Hong-Ik University. Plaintiff went on to earn a masters degree from State University of New York in 1989. In 1988, the State University of New York awarded a large research grant to plaintiff. Plaintiff used this grant to make seven sculptures.
The Wooster School operates a community arts center (WCAC) on its property to exhibit artworks and is part of the Wooster School’s budget. In 2001, the plaintiff handed over 7 sculptures to WCAC. The WCAC director, Nancy Rogers testified at trial that the sculptures were loaned to WCAC for an undeterminable time and that she agreed to exhibit the sculptures because she thought it would improve the landscape of the school. Both the plaintiff and Nancy Rogers agreed that plaintiff would exhibit the 7 sculptures at the school for an indefinite term and plaintiff was free at any point to request her work back from WCAC. The agreement reached between the parties was oral and was not confirmed in writing. In 2005, Wendy Northrup assumed Nancy Rogers’ former position. In May of that same year, Northrup found sculptures 4, 5 and 6 laying in the parking lot, and 7 was totally demolished. A part of sculpture 3, the steel ball, was completely unattached and located near a tree on WCAC grounds. Northrup stated that there was nobody at the school who knew who owned the sculptures. Furthermore, Northrup provided that there was concern on the part of the school’s maintenance staff that several of the sculpture pieces appeared rusted and could pose a potential health hazard.
In 2006, the plaintiff contacted Northrup about the return of her sculptures. Northrup testified that she told plaintiff about the condition of the sculptures and what had happened to sculpture 7. Plaintiffs lawyer went to the WCAC to look for the missing sculptures without success.
The plaintiff commenced a civil lawsuit against defendants WCAC, Wooster School, Nancy Rogers, and Wendy Northrup for breach of bailment contract, negligence, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff claims that WCAC and Wooster School failed to give back the 7 sculptures upon request, failed to preserve the sculptures with reasonable care, and are liable for the damage to the sculptures and for the missing scukptures.
Issues
There were two main legal issues: a) Was there a bailment contract between plaintiff and defendants, and b) was the plaintiff entitled to damages for breach bailment contract.
Decision
The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the requisite burden of proof needed to successfully prove the existence of a bailment contract and that defendant breached this contract. Finding that the plaintiff proffered a successful breach of contract claim, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to appropriate monetary damages.
Rules
1) In order for the plaintiff to show the existence of a bailment contract, plaintiff only needs to show that the plaintiff delivered the items at issue to the defendant.
2) The proper measure of damages for loss of property due to a breach of a bailment contract is the value of the property at the time it was lost.
Reasoning
After the requisite proof is established to show a bailment contract, the defendant is liable for damages due to negligence if the plaintiff requests redelivery and the defendant thereafter fails to deliver the goods back to plaintiff. As for the damages, the court considered the expert testimony regarding the sculptures’ present value. The court concluded that $52,200 was a reasonable sales value for the sculptures and subsequently reduced this value by one-half because of the commission. Thus, the court reached the number $26,100 in total damages for the loss and damage to plaintiff’s sculptures.
Reasoning
The court found that the defendant breached the bailment contract and awarded the plaintiff $26,100 in damages for this breach.
Ethics
Absent an express written agreement, it s unclear exactly what the plaintiff and Nancy Rogers agreed to in the original loan agreement. But absent such an agreement, whether oral or written, defendant had a good faith duty to take reasonable measures and precautions to keep the plaintiff’s property safe. The plaintiff handed over the sculptures for the purpose of the WCAC displaying and exhibiting these sculptures to the public. While there may be no formal written agreement requiring WCAC to take care of the plaintiff’s sculptures, WCAC had an ethical obligation to not damage or destroy the plaintiff’s artwork. Surely, WCAC and Wooster School were both aware of how time-consuming and fragile artwork is and that is has significant meaning to its owner. WCAC should have taken much greater care to ensure that plaintiff’s sculptures were not lost or damaged.
